So who will to blame when this unbridled socialism totally destroys the world’s economies and millions of people are dying waiting in line for their small daily ration. How are we going pay to clean up the planet and develop new technologies when our last dimes are spent supporting the guy in the ox cart yelling” bring out your dead.” All to drop temps a fraction of a degree.

But shcb it’s not going to hurt economies that much, you’re being silly

So why is it reasonable to say we are going to kill the planet if temps raise that same amount because of our actions.

craven has a persuasive argument, what’s still missing is whether AGW / climate change is going to happen regardless of human action. If we pour gargantuan efforts into mitigation the result may still be a virtually negligable improvement from worst case. That dismal column is missing from craven’s simplification.

I see shcb still hasn’t learned the meaning of “socialism”. I guess some people just have a low knowledge ceiling.

“This is an extension of Ethan’s ongoing point.”

Ethan couldn’t make a point to save his life. He is too damn chickenshit to take ownership of his shitty ideas, so instead he just prattles on endlessly while trying (poorly) to pretend he is an unbiased observer. As a result, he comments amount to little more than meaningless tedium.

So let me see if I understand the Wingnutosphere’s climate gibberish. Any action on Anthropogenic Climate Change is “unbridled socialism” sure to “destroy the world’s economies”. “All to drop temps a fraction of a degree”. Sort of a ‘ya gotta destroy the village to save it’ thing.

Nonsense. The right said the same thing about CFCs and SO2. Both of these efforts reduced the problem and provided economically viable exchanges and trading mechanisms combined with active efforts to invent away the problem in the first place. Neither of these examples of unbridled sociamalism! destroyed human civilization: in fact it enhanced it (less damage to the ozone layer and reduced acid rain respectively).

How does one ‘debate’ madness? Can you ‘debate’ a lie without calling it a lie? Can you discuss clearly a-factual un-reason in reasonable terms? Sure. But pretending that nonsense has as much weight as truth (it’s just two sides to the coin and all that) isn’t the way to have the ‘debate’ around the 21st century campfire (blog comments, evidently).

When one side says, “disaster seems imminent that way, we should go this way”
and the other side says “sociamalism! gazornimplatxz!”
I’ll go with the first guy (the >98% of climate scientists, thank you)

Knight, while Craven’s (awesomely explosive) video does lack the dismal column of trying to prevent global climate change from happening and being unsuccessful, there is always the view of putting our resources towards adaptation rather than completely toward mitigation.

And I’m not sure if I’m understanding shcb, is the point that a global climate change in which the temperature raises some degrees, thus causing a *potentially* catastrophic shift in our equatorial zones, change in ocean chemistry, and all the like, is comparable to the economic problems that would *potentially* arise from action against it?

“But shcb it’s not going to hurt economies that much, you’re being silly

So why is it reasonable to say we are going to kill the planet if temps raise that same amount because of our actions.”

Those two things don’t even seem to be in remotely the same category. Yes, raising the temperature of the earth a few degrees wouldn’t kill the planet, but it sure would cause deaths of the fragile carbon-based life forms dependent on the chemical/biological/physical balance of the biosphere as a whole.

If someone actually believes that organized action against climate change will lead to all those terrible post-apocalyptic economic scenarios, then by all means say it (no matter how out there they seem). But I don’t think that it compares in any way to the potential repercussions of global climate change. To compare the two is indeed, very silly.